The transition to a net-zero economy, which balances the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with those removed from it, is often told as a story of Western policy and technology. But the sharper test is unfolding far from the West. Across Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia, countries that will account for most future energy use, city building and job creation are making decisions that will shape the world’s carbon footprint for decades to come.
The same countries also account for a rising share of global emissions due to industrialisation, urbanisation, and energy demand. Manufacturing has also shifted from the North, leading to a greater share of global emissions at about 63%. However, the task here is not to cut consumption but to expand it without locking in carbon-heavy systems. This is where climate startups have struggled.
Local accelerators in these markets are small, thinly funded and often limited to one country. Global venture firms tend to avoid seed-stage climate companies in emerging economies, citing long payback periods, policy risk and low margins. Impact capital steps in, but usually with grants or short programmes that stop before commercial scale.
Last week, I spoke with Juliette Keeley, chief impact officer at Shell Foundation (SF), which supports clean energy solutions, and Carrie Liauw, executive director at 500 Global, a US venture capital firm, to understand how both firms are backing African climate tech startups. They broke down how the Sustainable Innovation Program (SIP), an accelerator initiative led by the two firms, is making these sustainability-focused startups investable before they reach the hardest part of the capital stack.
The effort sits at the intersection of grant funding and early venture capital. In Nairobi, startups in 500 Global’s Sustainable Innovation Seed Accelerator typically raise about $150,000 for 6% equity, with roughly $37,500 deducted as programme fees.
Shell Foundation, which does not take equity, has backed early-stage agri-energy pilots in Africa with cheques ranging from $15,000 to $50,000. In parallel programmes elsewhere, Shell has gone further up the risk curve; its 2025 Shell E4 cohort in India received between €100,000 and €500,000 per startup. The African programme was launched in August 2025 with backing from the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, targeting startups in energy, agriculture and mobility.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
How does the Sustainable Innovation Seed Accelerator connect emerging market startups to global mentors, investors and customers?
Carrie Liauw: Many accelerators in emerging markets operate within a single country. Startups often have limited exposure to global investors, customers, and operating experience beyond their home market.
The Sustainable Innovation Seed Accelerator is structured to give founders access to global mentors and 500 Global’s international network, rather than short, market-specific support.
What does the Shell Foundation actually pay for in this programme?
Juliette Keeley: Shell Foundation provides grant funding to support a 12-month accelerator model. The funding covers enterprise support delivered locally, including market validation, product-market fit, capital planning and fundraising support.
The programme is non-equity. It focuses on business support, with 500 Global providing mentorship, networks, and toolkits to help companies grow revenue. The programme supports companies from Seed through Series B, reflecting where Shell Foundation sees the largest gaps in the market today.
How do you avoid crowding out local capital or local accelerators when you step in with global funding and brand power?
Keely: Many local accelerators operate at a small scale and for short programme durations. This programme is designed to complement, rather than replace, local efforts by extending founders’ access to global investors and customers.
In Kenya, the startup ecosystem includes organisations such as Baobab Network, iHub, KCIC, Delta 40, Savannah Fund and Catalyst Fund. 500 Global is exploring collaboration with existing ecosystem players. The accelerator is being delivered in partnership with the timbuktoo Africa initiative led by UNDP, with a focus on strengthening local capabilities alongside global exposure.
How much influence does the Shell Foundation have over a company’s strategy during the programme? Where is the line between support and steering?
Keely: 500 Global provides mentorship and guidance on strategy and execution, but founders retain decision-making authority.
From the Shell Foundation’s perspective, we focus on whether companies are serving our core customer groups and tracking income and gender outcomes. We monitor this through selection criteria and KPIs. Beyond that, we do not direct company strategy.
How do you decide which risks you absorb and which risks you leave with founders or follow-on investors? What does that look like in practice?
Keely: Shell Foundation accepts that impact risk is inherent at early stages, since income and climate outcomes only materialise as companies scale. We manage this through aligned KPIs, selection criteria, and reporting requirements, while founders and future investors continue to carry commercial risk.
How do you price the cost of failure? When a startup does not scale, what signals do you track to decide whether the model failed or the market was misread?
Keely: We set milestones and stop criteria tied to customer reach, income uplift, and gender outcomes within defined timeframes. These signals help us assess whether challenges stem from execution, market assumptions, or the model itself.
What parts of the value chain do you intervene in most aggressively? Product design, unit economics, governance or market access. Why those layers?
Keely: Shell Foundation works across innovation, scaling partnerships, and capital mobilisation. The accelerator reflects this by supporting companies on market validation, product-market fit, expansion, fundraising, and network access, rather than focusing on a single intervention point.
What data do these startups flow back to the Shell Foundation during and after the programme? How is it used to shape future investment theses?
Keely: Companies report on customer numbers, capital mobilised, and emissions avoided. A third-party evaluator assesses income impacts on customers. This data informs future decisions on investing in similar accelerators and funds.
Lastly, at what point does the Shell Foundation step back? What conditions trigger a clean exit from active involvement?
Keely: After the accelerator ends, we review results related to customer reach, funding leveraged, and income impact. Based on that assessment, we may consider follow-on investment.
